Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You know the rule; you cite the rule, yet you then want to suppose something else. WHY? I don't understand the need to try to fabricate something new.

For example:

If A1 goes airborne and releases a try for goal that is blocked by B2, but then A1 charges into B1 would you say that since the try had ended that this was not a PC foul? Would you award the bonus at the other end?

What if A1's try is goaltended by B2 and then B1 fouls A1 while he is still airborne?